Originally posted by ScottyflamingoI'm not liking this whole Trilogy aspect of everything. Comics can produce an infinite amount of films and if they are good, I don't care if we go to Batman 20. It is like James Bond.

Cool poster though.

I'm OK with giving filmmakers three movies to spread out a good story before handing a franchise to another filmmaker with a different perspective.

But they can still make Batman films after this one. This is Chris Nolan's take on the Batman universe. Once he's done someone else can come along and do what they want to do with it. I much prefer talents like Nolan being able to tell full, complete stories than see them having to keep characters alive/suspend story arcs just becase the franchise must go on.

Yeah, consider "Batman movies" are basically an ongoing title and that there will always be Batman movies produced. How is it different from a creative team coming onboard a Batman comic, doing a trilogy of issues, and handing it off to the next creative team?

I'm excited to see an "ending" to this epic Nolan Batman story. If you read the foreword to Frank Miller's The Dark Knight Returns, a salient point is made pointing out that what comic book superheroes largely lack is an "ending" to their legend. Frank Miller provided one in The Dark Knight Returns, seems like Nolan will do the same in The Dark Knight Rises. I think that's great.

Originally posted by Amos CochranBut they can still make Batman films after this one. This is Chris Nolan's take on the Batman universe. Once he's done someone else can come along and do what they want to do with it. I much prefer talents like Nolan being able to tell full, complete stories than see them having to keep characters alive/suspend story arcs just becase the franchise must go on.

Agreed. Agreed agreed! After all, over 14 years later, we're all still left hanging by the way Joel Schumacher left his Batman franchise unfinished, aren't we?

I wish they would keep going and probably would have if Ledger didn't die. I am more terrified of what is happening with Spiderman. As much as people nail Raimi for Spidey 3, I think the reboot is going to suck harder. A dark Spidey with the origin story told again with his parents, who are 99% not that interesting without Red Skull. After seeing some of the Lizard stuff, I am deeply concerned.

That is the problem with handing if off to a new team is that we might get another Shumaker who thinks its the TV show or someone tries to do the failure that has been Morrison's Batman. A Batman stuck in time and setting up Batmen across the globe for a reason that no longer matters. Or worse, we get RIP. Garbage. As for the Bond argument, we get a really good Bond film once a decade. We get ok ones, but that is about it and part of that is do to changes to the creative staff. I'd prefer we let the Batman rest for a bit or at least not tell the origin story over again.

Yeah, but the alternative is to try and maintain the universe that Nolan created without the presence of Nolan or Bale or any of the other cast. Which i s a recipe for disaster. If you let Nolan tell his story, you get likely great trilogy of Batfilms, with the novelty of a definitive ending, and the franchise is all the better for it. Then someone like, say, Brad Bird or Joss Whedon or Rian Johnson can come in and give it their best shot, taking it in a different direction altogether. That's the beauty of an 80 year-old franchise - one bad film or one creative misfire isn't going to derail it.

EDIT; And the WB film division really could not give less of a shit about trying to shoehorn comics stories into their Batman films, You are never, ever going to see Batman Inc. or RIP or any title only known to hardcore comic readers brought to the screen.

Originally posted by Amos CochranYeah, but the alternative is to try and maintain the universe that Nolan created without the presence of Nolan or Bale or any of the other cast. Which i s a recipe for disaster.

Letting Nolan complete his epic and then doing a new Batman with a new cast and direction is the way to go. (They don't have to retell the origin.)

I've always hated the implication (via the presence of Michael Gough, Pat Hingle, and Dr. Chase Meridian's comment about Batman preferring women "with skintight vinyl and a whip") that the Joel Schumacher movies with Val Kilmer and George Clooney were continuations of Tim Burton's Batman with Michael Keaton.

Originally posted by Amos CochranYeah, but the alternative is to try and maintain the universe that Nolan created without the presence of Nolan or Bale or any of the other cast. Which i s a recipe for disaster.

Letting Nolan complete his epic and then doing a new Batman with a new cast and direction is the way to go. (They don't have to retell the origin.)

I've always hated the implication (via the presence of Michael Gough, Pat Hingle, and Dr. Chase Meridian's comment about Batman preferring women "with skintight vinyl and a whip") that the Joel Schumacher movies with Val Kilmer and George Clooney were continuations of Tim Burton's Batman with Michael Keaton.

(edited by John Orquiola on 13.12.11 0909)

Yet they were. Same Alfred, same Gordon.

I see your points about separate arcs, but I am concerned they will not be successful for the same reason The Incredible Hulk suffered and, I believe, Amazing Spider-Man will suffer. The average moviegoer is not going to understand different takes on the same character without a significant amount of time going by.

Therefore even if you had something like a David Fincher directed Batman written by Paul Dini it could fizzle and then we get NO Batmans.

Originally posted by ScottyflamingoTherefore even if you had something like a David Fincher directed Batman written by Paul Dini it could fizzle and then we get NO Batmans.

Oh, I don't know about that. If someone like David Fincher decided he wanted to do a Batman, I think there'd be quite a bit of interest.

I hope one major positive thing about what Nolan has done with Batman is raised the bar for who will be the steward and auteur of the franchise next. Handing the next series of Batman movies to a hack would undo all the work Nolan did in rescuing Batman films from the memories of Schumacher - and profits from future films would plummet accordingly.

Also, consider that unlike other studios like Sony and FOX, the WB has an ace in the hole: they own the rights to Batman. Why is the Amazing Spider-Man happening so soon after Spider-Man 3 despite the wishes of many in the general public? Because Sony Pictures can't wait - the rights to Spider-Man will revert back to Marvel. They had to make a movie to keep the character in their studio.

In contrast, Warner Bros. didn't and doesn't force Christopher Nolan to get Batman movies out in theaters by a certain date. Nolan took his time, 3 years between Batman Begins and The Dark Knight and 4 years between The Dark Knight and The Dark Knight Rises. Nolan has delivered above and beyond expectations twice over and has the pull to make sure he gets his blockbuster films made properly without a rush-job that happens too often (unfinished script, etc.) just to make a release date.

Hopefully, when Nolan walks away from Batman, the standards of quality he set will continue with whomever comes in to make the next Batman movie series.

Originally posted by ScottyflamingoI'm not liking this whole Trilogy aspect of everything. Comics can produce an infinite amount of films and if they are good, I don't care if we go to Batman 20. It is like James Bond.

Cool poster though.

Not really, especially not with Batman, which has had several different versions and incarnations and changes over the years. Batman has been a series of crime stories, a campy 60's TV show, a dark operatic western, and now a gritty realistic urban fantasy. Part of the reason Batman is more successful (at least when it comes to film) is because Batman is so malleable and open for reinterpretation.

Who knows what the dude after Nolan is going to do?

Bond, however, while certain cinematic aspects change with the time period, the core Bond character still maintains several traits that are in every single movie. There's a lot of difference between 1960's Batman and Nolan Batman (most notably, no Robin).

There's just too many factors involved in the politics of filmmaking to keep a consistent character for more than 3 films (mostly because contracts are usually designed around "trilogies").

We are not going to get 7 Star Trek movies with Christopher Pine, Zachary Quinto, JJ Abrams, etc. Not gonna happen. 3, maybe 4 at best. Too many names to re-sign, too many careers that are motivated by other things besides "playing Spock" for the rest of their lives. Too many different competing visions at work with only 2 hours to work with to tell a story (with NO guarantee of a sequel). Same deal with X-Men.

On the flipside, yeah, what they're doing with Spider-Man is ridiculous in the opposite way. I don't think it should be handled like that either with an origin story that doesn't have to be re-told every 10 years. We get it. We know who Spider-Man is. Just throw Lizard at him already. Same deal with Superman, and I'm sure Zack Snyder's Superman is going to be greatly different from Bryan Singer's.

The best that comic book fans can hope for is that these movies are handled like graphic novels, not serialized comics. With finite stories and a distinct tone which can be different from director/actor to director/actor.

To get this thread back to The Dark Knight Rises, there's an interview with Christopher Nolan at The Hero Complex (herocomplex.latimes.com) which he gave after he showed the first seven minutes of Rises to the press last week.